修改 QQ 机器人群配置

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses an important constraint: qqCode cannot be modified to avoid invalidating in-use options, and it describes the unified response format. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens on failure beyond a generic response code.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: endpoint and purpose first, followed by a key constraint, then the request fields and response format. It is slightly redundant with the schema by listing the parameters again, but the constraint and response information justify the length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter edit tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the key immutability constraint, the required request fields, and the response envelope. It does not cover authorization requirements or detailed error behavior, but the included information is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each of the three parameters already having a type and description. The description repeats the parameters and required markers but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The qqCode immutability note is behavioral context, not parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action as modifying QQ bot group configuration, stating the endpoint and the resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like open_qqbot_add and open_qqbot_delete by its edit semantics, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is used when modifying an existing QQ bot group configuration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over related qqbot tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.